Are cyclists becoming pedestrians?

The article says that a multi-use paved trail will replace the sidewalks on either side of Block Line Road in Kitchener, from Strasburg Road to Homer Watson Boulevard. There is already a multi-use paved trail on one side of Block Line from Homer Watson to Fallowfield Drive, and the expectation is that another will be added from Fallowfield to Courtland Avenue, where one of the LRT stations will be established when the rapid transit service launches in 2017.

My first concern was that the existing trails/sidewalks funnel cyclists to crosswalks, where, by provincial legislation, they have to dismount and walk their bikes across. Seriously? That'll never happen. Making cyclists dismount at every intersection turns cyclists into pedestrians.

Josh Joseph and Ron Schirm, of Kitchener's transportation department, inform me that the plans are that the trails will offer cyclists the option to return to the street within 30 metres of an intersection, so that they can join the traffic flow and ride through the intersection, and then rejoin the multi-use trail 30 metres farther on.

The big roundabout at Homer Watson and Block Line will be handled differently, in that cyclists will be instructed to remain on the multi-use trail, and will have to dismount and walk their bikes across Homer Watson. (Frankly, that roundabout is so scary, that using the crosswalk seems like a smart alternative.) For smaller roundabouts, such as the one at Fallowfield and Block Line, cyclists can join the traffic and ride through the roundabout.

That's the plan, anyway. The same plan was recommended for the multi-use trail on Huron Road, from Strasburg Road to Fischer-Hallman Road. Those ramps to allow cyclists to ride off the trail and join the traffic flow haven't been built.

Between announcement and implementation, a lot can happen, and I fear someone will decide that the on/off ramps for cyclists add too much cost to the project. So my guess is that the multi-use trail will be separate and distinct from the roadway, and cyclists will have the legislative obligation to dismount to use the crosswalks at Country Hill Drive and Kingswood Drive, for instance.

I have other concerns, so here's my voice crying in the wilderness: There are already painted bike lanes on Block Line Road, all the way from Westmount Road to Homer Watson. And they work. Except for the occasional right-turning bozo who decides the bike lane was meant for his compact car, cars stay out of the bike lanes and cyclists can ride care-free and car-free.

Why spend the cash to tear up the existing sidewalks and replace them with a paved multi-use trail, when there is already functioning bicycle infrastructure there? Think how many more painted and signed on-street bike lanes could be created with that cash.

And if the pedestrian population isn't already ticked off with the occasional hotdogging cyclist who crowds their space on the sidewalks, what are they going to think of the bicycle commuting crowd that fills the multi-use trail on their way to and from the LRT station? Oh man, I don't want to see the traffic jams when the St. Mary's High School crowd and the cycle commuters are filling all the crosswalks on the roundabout at Homer Watson.

I know, I shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth. Segregated cycling lanes are seen by many non-cyclists or occasional cyclists as safer than on-road cycling lanes. Hesitant cyclists are even more hesitant when fast cars and trucks go zipping by. A separated bicycle lane (aka multi-use trail) will encourage more people to ride, and will help feed non-car traffic to the planned LRT station on Courtland.

But the speed limit on Block Line is 50 km/h. Assuming an average cycling speed of 25 km/h, those cars will go by at, well, the speed of a bicycle! How frightening is that? That's if the motorists aren't speeding, and that may be the back story to some of this interest in a multi-use lane on Block Line. Almost no one (other than me) goes at 50 km/h on that stretch of road. I've had cars jamming me from behind even when I was doing 60. Is it that there is no budget money for traffic enforcement on this road, but there is budget money for roadway infrastructure changes (the multi-use trail isn't being built on its own; it's a part of a general roadway widening of Block Line)?

This should be a gift, and I should be happy with it, but I want a good luck inside its mouth, first.

Comments

Bill, you hit upon the most important point: "Segregated cycling lanes are seen by many non-cyclists or occasional cyclists as safer than on-road cycling lanes."

Changing people's travel modes away from exclusively car involves, in part, creating a lot of cycling growth. Cycling growth is going to come from people who are non-cyclists now. We need to pay attention to what they need, not what we would consider reasonable for ourselves.

The legality and rules of crossings in Ontario is the elephant in the room here. If we are going to see more segregated cycle tracks, we need to sort out intersections. But to get the momentum to sort out intersections, we need more segregated cycle tracks.

The downside in this situation is, with as much potential as good cycling along Block Line to LRT has for changing the habits of some, failure to solve the crossing situation at Homer-Watson will probably leave a huge barrier to cycling adoption that makes the other work for naught.

"Except for the occasional right-turning bozo who decides the bike lane was meant for his compact car, cars stay out of the bike lanes and cyclists can ride care-free and car-free."

I like a lot of what you're saying here, Bill, but I don't like the above sentence. If a car is turning right, they're going to cross the path of a cyclist in the bike lane at some point. As a cyclist, I would much rather that happen due to a shoulder-check and legal lane change _into_ the bike lane just prior to the right turn, then as a surprise right hook.

If you check out the line painting on a lot of bike lanes around the city, the solid line separating it from the car lanes becomes a dashed line near intersections, implying that it is acceptable for cars to cross that line.

Now, if what you're complaining about is bozos who drive for three blocks in the bike lane because they want to turn right way up ahead, that's cool. But I encourage you to encourage drivers to "take the lane" when they're about to turn right across a bike lane. It's safer for everyone.

"Segregated cycling lanes are seen by many non-cyclists or occasional cyclists as safer than on-road cycling lanes."

I would argue that more than the ocassional cyclist believes these are safer than vehicular cycling. David Hembrow`s fantastic blog A view from the cycle path converted me. However what he calls a cycle path I would call a cycling road.

He beautifully explains the concept of subjective safety and how these segregated road systems increasing the number of cyclists because of that feeling of safety.
These are not the same as these multi use paths we have here.

You are right, placing cyclists, effectively on the sidewalk, does make the cyclist a pedestrian rather than a vehicle. It eliminates the benifit of cycling`s speed, while pissing off pedestrians and drivers.

And it has the further effect of convincing more cagers that you don`t belong on the road anyhow. This really is a losing senerio for cyclists.

Bill I share your reservations. I was particularly dismayed by the comments made by the transportation specialist that cyclists and cars cannot mix where speed limits are 50km/h or above. Pardon me but nearly every street in these cities has such a speed limit. Are they going to put a cycle track everywhere? In any case Fallowfield with the bad sight lines, parked cars all over the place and speeding motorists is far more dangerous than Block Line.

I am further dismayed that these separated cycle tracks will be especially problematic at intersections like Fallowfield, the entrance to St Mary's and Lennox Lewis Drive. The city is living in fantasyland as existing pedestrians and cyclists are staying away from those roundabouts never mind getting more people to ride or walk. This is a symptom of the city's insistence of turning neighbourhoods into isolated islands bound by high traffic multi-lane roadways.

As for dismounting at interestions and walking my bike across Homer Watson, this I will refuse to do. If I am ticketed I will fight it in court and introduce the city to the Highway Traffic Act at close quarters.

BTW Bill you're not the only one that drives the speed limit on Block Line. It's all part of my drive to rule campaign after being lectured at about how cyclists break traffic laws all the time.

IMO if a city wants to create a 'shared' space with pedestrians, then the law to dismount MUST be ignored.

You simply can't have people use a multi-use path, then tell them to get off to cross an intersection. Use red or blue and paint a bike lane across the intersections.

We have two shared *trails* here in St. Catharines, and at crossings they have "Cyclists must dismount" signs. Only people I've seen dismount are tourists.

Look to Germany where most cities have split the sidewalk in half. A little red paint or brick laid to identify the bike lane.

It seems to work in some cities (Bremen, Koln) but there are issues.
In Hamburg so much snow and ice builds up it forces cyclists onto the road.
Pedestrians completely ignore the bike lane part of the 'sidewalk', cyclists are constantly moving back and forth dodging pedestrians.
Munich has a similar issue with pedestrians, though they are generally tourists wandering into the bike lanes.

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Name is required to post a comment

Please enter a valid email address

Invalid URL

Please enable JavaScript if you would like to comment on this blog.

Bill Bean

North America is eventually going to figure out that, for all the right reasons, we need more bicycles on our roads. Dust off your bicycle and go cycling. And if the gas-burning dinosaurs start to crowd you, it's your road and you paid for it. Take the lane for yourself.

September 2013

Legal...

Copyright Grand River Valley Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved. The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Record or www.therecord.com. The Record is not responsible for the content or views expressed on external sites. Distribution and transmission or republication of any material is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of The Record.